Legal Opinion

Fitzpatrick v. Featherstone

Supreme Court of Alabama

Decided June 15, 1841PublishedCited by 10 opinions

This cause comes here by writ of error, from the Chancery Court sitting at Montgomery. THE plaintiffs allege in their bill, that in the year 1836, they contracted with the defendant, Featherstone, for the purchase of several tracts of land, situate in the county of Macon, at the price of eleven thousand dollars — one half of this sum was to have been paid sixty days after the purchase, and the balance in twelve months.

Read the full summary

This cause comes here by writ of error, from the Chancery Court sitting at Montgomery. THE plaintiffs allege in their bill, that in the year 1836, they contracted with the defendant, Featherstone, for the purchase of several tracts of land, situate in the county of Macon, at the price of eleven thousand dollars — one half of this sum was to have been paid sixty days after the purchase, and the balance in twelve months. The sum first due has been paid, and for the payment of the last sum, they executed their promissory note, payable twelve months after date. The lands agreed to be sold, it…

1Opinion of the CourtCollier, C. J.

It is not insisted that the injunction was improperly dissolved, nor indeed can it be, as the answers contain a direct denial of the allegations of the bill on which the complainants rest their claim to equitable relief.

Though it does not explicitly appear whether .the bill was dismissed upon a hearing of the cause, or on a motion to dissolve the injunction, yet we will suppose, that it was disposed of on the motion to dissolve. The question then is, do the facts *42as stated by the complainants, and the general prayer of the-bill, entitle them to further relief?

The only relief which the…

2Cited by10 opinions

  1. Enslen v. AllenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1909
  2. Shields v. TrammellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1857
  3. Wilson v. ReadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1907
  4. Health Science Products, Inc. v. Taylor (In Re Health Science Products, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Alabama · 1995
  5. Davis v. TarwaterSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1854

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API